Wanted in Nigeria: A more proactive legislature

But does Nigeria at the federal level really require a bicameral legislature, that is, two branches of a legislature when both bodies have the same mandate -to make laws for the good governance of Nigeria?  If the purpose is to ensure that everyone is adequately represented, is the large numerical strength of the House of […]

But does Nigeria at the federal level really require a bicameral legislature, that is, two branches of a legislature when both bodies have the same mandate -to make laws for the good governance of Nigeria?  If the purpose is to ensure that everyone is adequately represented, is the large numerical strength of the House of Representatives arising from the creation of many seats to bring representation from every part not enough?  
Well, perhaps both bodies are in order since a bicameral legislature is a common phenomenon in many parts of the world but not every citizen is persuaded that Nigeria should have an institution just because others have it.  If so, which should we drop if we are to settle for one? The widespread representation of the House seems to give it an advantage, more so as there is really no function of the Senate that cannot as well be handled by the House of Representatives.
As a matter of fact, from the performances of both bodies, an analyst can opine with ample justification that the House is far more people oriented. Indeed, the Senate occasionally rationalizes issues with little logic. Even the modalities it evolves for doing its job are often uninspiring. No less annoying is the way it occasionally justifies its position on certain topical issues; a good example being the handling of its constitutional mandate to ascertain the suitability of nominees for certain top public positions. For this, the Senate developed a template that gives automatic clearance to anyone who is or has been a senator. The assumption here is that every former or present senator is a person of integrity. Does it not occur to the Senate that Nigerians know people of integrity?  Can the decision of senators to describe themselves as ‘distinguished’ immediately attach integrity to each and every one of them including many who rigged elections to get in there? Besides, is it not annoying to tell Nigerians that former senators who had moved on to other assignments can do no wrong even in their new situations?
The above questions throw ample light on what our senate has just done to Musiliu Obanikoro who was last week given a clean bill to be appointed a Minister of the Federal Republic.  Obanikoro is probably an amiable character judging by what those of us who know him perceive of him. But asking him to take a bow as a former senator without any question at a time when he is facing severe allegations that are of  interest to the public is no doubt perverse.  While it is true that the Senate, not being a court of law, should neither put Obanikoro on trial over any allegations nor impute that he is guilty of any, it amounts to insensitivity to ask a political nominee to take a bow and proceed to take a public office at a time when the same public he is to serve is nursing certain disturbing misgivings against him. A normal interview session with the nominee would have given the Senate a better image.
Again if the principle of “take a bow” is to be employed, it would be illogical for it to take precedence over the objections of senators from the nominee’s state since that is also a standing rule of the Senate. Objections ought to vitiate the privilege of taking a bow. Whereas Nigerians are yet to appreciate what qualifies a nominee for automatic clearance, extending it to those who have questions to answer is offensive. The case of Obanikoro is thus the latest issue which puts the comedy of taking a bow to serious test. When the case is properly examined, the Senators failed in their duty because strictly speaking, the mandate of the Senate to clear nominees for certain positions does not also confer on the senate the power to exempt some nominees. Thus in the instant case of Obanikoro, the Senate exceeded its powers. This becomes clearer when we recalls that Minister Abba Moro was accorded the same exemption even though he did not fall into those purportedly exempted by the same Senate. What this suggests is that our Senate operates under its own whims and caprices without regards to the sensibilities of the people.
Whether the House of Representatives would have done a better job on the issue cannot immediately be known. While accepting that the House is often more proactive than the Senate, both bodies, once a while, are never able to rise beyond self interest. The struggle for automatic tickets for re-election tops the examples in this regard. Indeed, a review of what the National Assembly has done so far in its relationship with our electoral body brings out the issue more clearly. Because our legislators enjoy the manipulation of elections, they take delight in using lawmaking to derogate substantially from the independence of our electoral body. For example, although Section 118 of our Constitution puts the registration of voters and the conduct of elections under the direction and supervision of the Independent National Electoral Commission, our legislature went ahead to direct INEC on the voting method for elections by enacting an Electoral Act which in Section 52 prohibits what everyone else now does -electronic voting.  Meanwhile, paragraph 15 Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution merely allows the legislature to get involved only in regulating the registration of political parties. It stands to reason anyway that our legislators who are themselves contestants in the game of elections ought not to control the format or voting method to be used.
Reports in the media that our National Assembly has now resolved to cancel the unreasonable prohibition of electronic voting which it had no business getting involved with in the first instance suggests that law making in Nigeria is temperamental. We can do better.